Can An Atheist Have A Soul?

His sandals were a scandal 'cause they're stolen by the Vandals.

Sin is an Arabic word shouted out when an archer misses his target. This is not a crime. It is a failed attempt to succeed. God loves a trier regardless of the beliefs that made him try. Beliefs in themselves are most often a sin and a sin is always commendable. An Atheist often denies his soul but he speaks his beliefs from it regardless and often with great spirit. Also they're possibly the largest voice on earth and they are in a sense the bravest. Those who faithfully conduct their lives in accord with the mostly misunderstood metaphorical guidelines of established religious sects not only use the other members to support and protect them like animals who live in packs, but they place the responsibility for their every decision and action on the heads of their chosen leaders.

How can anyone deny something that doesn't exist? A soul is a religious word that has no evidence for it.

Throughout history many things were proven that previously were not and prior to those discoveries there were argumentative sceptics the basis of who's argument was simply that there was no proof. Anyone can argue non existence on the basis of no proof, as long as there's an inability to see that a lack of evidence proves only a lack of evidence and not that there is or isn't anything. This argument is trying to find out if your individual beliefs can contain or remove a soul isn't it. As though an atheist doesn't deserve one, or can perhaps expel it if he doesn't want one. The question itself after all, presupposes that there is such a thing. You seem to be trying to convince participants to believe there's no such thing as a soul, whilst simultaneously admitting that you have no basis for your own beliefs.

Wrong; I have my belief; the bible is a ficticious book. Any "soul" mentioned in the bible is a creation of the authors of that book - like most comic books, it's based on imagination.

BTW, you must also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.

Who cares? Why are you asking about athiests, in particular. Do you have one? Is it a place, a thing, or what? Where do you find it in/on the body, in the hair, on the big toe? It is a rather dumb question.

I'm atheist, and I'm pretty sure I have a soul.

Does that answer your question?

Glad I could help!

oi! everyone knows that catlicks ain't xtian

My guess is most theists will say yes and most atheists will say no.

Has anybody on this thread defined "soul" yet?

Just axin'

Your Soul is like, what's inside of your body. Ya know, like your mind and spirit and personality. Duh my friend!

Haha! Just kidding!

I'm not sure if that's right at all!

Happy Halloween, bye!

I call all that, like, guts and liver and lungs and stuff, not 'soul.'

And a happy Spook Day to you, too.

Again you throw a belief as a valid argument. You can believe anything you want but all that belief is or will ever be, is a personally selected component of your own control mechanism. Santa ?? haha Yeah I choose to believe in father Christmas in my way. I don't really like the old Nick that arises from the flames in the fireplace mind you. Expecting food and drink from children and demanding conformity by blackmail. But that very real, evolved, indescribable energy, or if you prefer human quality, attained by the sweetest human souls that lends them to give gifts to children and others with genuine love, often totally unconditionally, but at worst just to see them happy. I'm certain that vibration deserves recognition and a title don't you agree. Be it father Christmas, Santa or whatever. I don't really have to believe in it, cause I have total faith it exists.

Yes, they said that "you are your soul" your body is just like a car that will one day wear out or break down.

You're seriously delusional, Bubba . . . but they have therapies for that.

I may not have a soul but I have plenty of rhythm.

No attempt whatsoever to explain your conclusion there was there. Firstly, LUSTIG ANDRES said "we are all souls temporarily inhabiting a physical body. After the body stops functioning, like a car whose engine has given out, the soul remains, it is immortal... I'm not a Christian, but I agree ( along with the entire Christian and Catholic community, as well as many others) with that BELIEF... Secondly, Every thought is an energy that has power enough that they can easily be measured on an oscilloscope and more recently can be used to trigger computers for various purposes and there is an array of proof that thoughts can be transmitted from person to person. I'm sure you've heard of telepathic communication. The ministry of defence uses it in more than one country and even trains spies to use it. Each type of thought such as anger or love has a different vibration, I would have thought that would be common sense. especially as people regularly use sayings such as "Giving out angry vibes" and there you clearly see a frame of mind, which is a type of energy, a vibration or a waveband maybe, that has been given the name "Anger". The frame of mind that gives freely can also be transmitted in the same way. it is also an energy with it's own individual value, like love, and it is also worthy of a name. Santa or father Christmas "to me" are not real, but metaphorical beings that (intentionally created for the purpose or not) illuminate that frame of mind, energy, vibration, frequency or waveband. It is without any doubt whatsoever a unique quality of life and I personally, can think of no creature on earth aside from human beings that rise to it and display it with fully conscious and premeditated forethought. I think for that reason it is an advanced, or evolved energy not yet attained by other creatures, at least that I am aware of. Perhaps you'd explain in some detail exactly what makes you think that is delusional.

oh please

I have soul

and I have the Human Spirit as my priority

which NO religion has

You immediately arrive at the erroneous conclusion that the soul is separate from the biology. Totally erroneous conclusion.

My post did not refer to anything Lustig Andres has to say, so that's a non sequitur on your part. This is the post to which i responded, which it would have been easy for you to establish, were you not so hell bent on lecturing people:



After writing drivel like that, you have the gall to say to me that i'd made no attempt to explain my conclusions? So what? You have no basis for the idiocy contained in this post, beyond a feeble appeal to your "faith." So, since you seem so eager for an explanation, that's why i say you're delusional.